The petitioner challenged an order rejecting his application for withdrawal of land acquisition. The court observed that possession was taken pursuant to an old award in 1983 and the claim was stale.
The petition was not entertained and was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
7 wpst 31613-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 31613 OF 2019
Pravin Vithal Kashid .. Petitioner
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
..Respondents
Adv. Ujwala Karpe i/b. Adv. V.S.Deokar for the Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale “B” Panel Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : A.A.SAYED &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2020.
P.C. :
1 of 2
salgaonkar
7 wpst 31613-19.doc
per Section 48 of the said Act, the acquisition of the acquired land of the Petitioner;
(d) That this Hon’b;e Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or directions in the nature of Mandamus thereby issuing directions to the respondents to hand it over back the possession of the acquired land of the Petitioner (which is mentioned in detail in para 6) as per Section 48 of the said Act.”
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)
2 of 2
salgaonkar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a Writ Petition seeking quashing of a rejection order for withdrawal of land acquisition.
Whether a claim for withdrawal of acquired land after the award is complete is stale.
Pravin Vithal Kashid
The State of Maharashtra
A.A.SAYED
ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
